Coker v. State
| Decision Date | 16 June 1921 |
| Citation | 89 So. 222,82 Fla. 5 |
| Parties | COKER v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, De Soto County; George W. Whitehurst Judge.
Elbert Coker was convicted of rape, and he brings error.
Reversed.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
W. D. Bell, of Arcadia, for plaintiff in error.
Rivers H. Buford, Atty. Gen. and J. B. Gaines, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Elbert Coker was tried upon an indictment for rape, alleged to have been committed on the 5th day of September, 1920, and was convicted in December of the same year. He seeks here a reversal of the judgment upon a writ of error.
The indictment was presented on the 20th day of December, 1920 and according to the bill of exceptions the cause proceeded in the following manner: The grand jury came into court and presented the indictment. The judge received it from the hands of the foreman, and delivered it to the state attorney and inquired if the defendant was in court. The defendant by his counsel objected to his arraignment at that time, and to his being required to plead, because he had not had sufficient notice of the contents of the indictment, and because no capias had issued thereon. This objection was overruled, and the defendant was required to plead to the indictment. Exception was taken to this proceeding. The defendant then requested a copy of the indictment before going to trial, but he was informed by the clerk that the latter did not have time to prepare it, whereupon the defendant objected to being put upon his trial, for the reason that he had not had sufficient time to prepare for his defense, and requested sufficient time to prepare his motion for an adjournment or continuance and place the same in writing. This motion was overruled, to which exception was taken, and 'immediately thereafter upon the same day, the said cause came on to be heard'; the defendant announcing that he was not ready for trial. These proceedings were made the bases of several assignments of error.
The Constitution of this state provides that in all prosecutions the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury, shall be heard by himself or counsel or both, shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, the right to meet the witnesses against him face to face, have compulsory process for the attendance of witnesses in his favor and shall be furnished with a copy of the indictment against him. See Declaration of Rights, § 11, Const. 1885. The rights above enumerated naturally grow out of the fundamental principle that every person shall be protected in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property except as they might be declared to be forfeited by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land. In substance, with the exception of the last provision, the rights enumerated are embraced and made a part of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. They were foreshadowed in Magna Charta, upon which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wadsworth v. State
...exposition of the law as it was so ably and eloquently expressed by Mr. Justice Ellis in the case of Coker v. State, appearing in 82 Fla. 5, 89 So. 222, however the facts in instant controversy are not analogous to those which inspired Mr. Justice Ellis' remarks. The rules by which we are g......
-
Hysler v. State
...might be wholly insufficient in another. Therefore no hard and fast rule could be applied alike in all cases.' In the case of Coker v. State, 82 Fla. 5, 89 So. 222, crime was alleged to have been committed on September 5, 1920, and the grand jury presented an indictment on December 20, 1920......
-
Banks v. State, 93-0983
...confidence in the institutions of free America and brings our very government into disrepute." [emphasis supplied.] Coker v. State, 82 Fla. 5, 7, 89 So. 222 (1921). Even more recently, the court confronted the same subject in Valle v. State, 394 So.2d 1004 (Fla.1981), "The state admits that......
-
Cash v. Culver
...not only the right to speak through counsel, but as well to have a reasonable time in which to prepare for trial. See also Coker v. State, 82 Fla. 5, 89 So. 222. In May v. State, 89 Fla. 78, 103 So. 115, we held that the right to be heard by counsel in criminal prosecutions is so fundamenta......